If you look in the razer thread, you'll see that there are enough users reporting the 35w limitation.

The CPU has a short power limit PL2 (which is usually 1.25x PL1) which can be maintained for a limited amount of time, after that it should be limited by the long term power limit PL1 at 45w (if the EC doesn't overwrite that with an arbitrary imposed limit based on what factors the notebook manufacturer wants).

There is at least one user there that has 60w for PL1 displayed, but apparently it is IGNORED, because in stress tests it triggers the limit at 45w and after a delay it is further limited to 35w (and it stays that way for the remaining duration of the test).

Call it whatever you want, but it is a 35w limit and it's a power limit as it behaves like one (the triggering factors can be different).

There are different behaviors for the same razer models, but apparently they all have the 35w limit, the main difference is in the way it kicks in: some reported a behavior where it was limited at 45w for a while and after a delay the 35w limit kicked in, others have mentioned that they are instantly limited at 35w by exceeding that CPU power draw (this is without any GPU load).

Your assumption is probably based on the theory that there is only one EC power limit and it is only related to the combined power draw, but the limit/limits can be whatever the manufacturer wants it to be and can be triggered by multiple factors.

The fact that razer has a more powerful adapter, doesn't mean that it doesn't suffer from similar limitations (which are probably there to keep thermals in check).

I'll even give you a link to a stress test that shows the razer's thermal limitations (with stock paste) at the usual 45w limit (which could be the main reason why the notebook is limited to 35w... in order to maintain better internal and external temps):

I'm not bashing all the thin and light models, I'm just saying that they all have a lower heat dissipation potential (compared to some of the better designed thick models) and the manufacturers have chosen to manage the thermals by adding other arbitrary imposed limits.

Saying that the X model holds y clocks doesn't mean anything, unless you provide the full context (under what loads, for how long, what's the CPU package power and at what's the undervolt offset?).

Examples of gaming scenarios are less relevant if we don't have enough data (a hwinfo log file would be nice), because it's almost impossible to properly debate the behavior without having at least a few constants (CPU loads fluctuate in gaming).

If you look in the razer thread, you'll see that there are enough users reporting the 35w limitation.

The CPU has a short power limit PL2 (which is usually 1.25x PL1) which can be maintained for a limited amount of time, after that it should be limited by the long term power limit PL1 at 45w (if the EC doesn't overwrite that with an arbitrary imposed limit based on what factors the notebook manufacturer wants).

There is at least one user there that has 60w for PL1 displayed, but apparently it is IGNORED, because in stress tests it triggers the limit at 45w and after a delay it is further limited to 35w (and it stays that way for the remaining duration of the test).

Call it whatever you want, but it is a 35w limit and it's a power limit as it behaves like one (the triggering factors can be different).

There are different behaviors for the same razer models, but apparently they all have the 35w limit, the main difference is in the way it kicks in: some reported a behavior where it was limited at 45w for a while and after a delay the 35w limit kicked in, others have mentioned that they are instantly limited at 35w by exceeding that CPU power draw (this is without any GPU load).

Your assumption is probably based on the theory that there is only one EC power limit and it is only related to the combined power draw, but the limit/limits can be whatever the manufacturer wants it to be and can be triggered by multiple factors.

The fact that razer has a more powerful adapter, doesn't mean that it doesn't suffer from similar limitations (which are probably there to keep thermals in check).

I'll even give you a link to a stress test that shows the razer's thermal limitations (with stock paste) at the usual 45w limit (which could be the main reason why the notebook is limited to 35w... in order to maintain better internal and external temps):

I'm not bashing all the thin and light models, I'm just saying that they all have a lower heat dissipation potential (compared to some of the better designed thick models) and the manufacturers have chosen to manage the thermals by adding other arbitrary imposed limits.

Saying that the X model holds y clocks doesn't mean anything, unless you provide the full context (under what loads, for how long, what's the CPU package power and at what's the undervolt offset?).

Examples of gaming scenarios are less relevant if we don't have enough data (a hwinfo log file would be nice), because it's almost impossible to properly debate the behavior without having at least a few constants (CPU loads fluctuate in gaming).

Click to expand...

Interesting. I thought RB 2018 had a 60W PL1.

So the RB2018 has a 35W limit than. You can say it makes up for it with the fastest 1070MQ gpu.

Even if it had a 120W tdp I wouldn't reccomend it. Razer puts the ROM and PCH below the heatsink to overheat(meaning the laptop won't last) . That alone is 100× worse than even a 15w TDP limit.

You can see from this thread that the P955 is melting away under a streaming load. While the aero 15x handles it effortlessly.

All clevo issues are software ones which means they can be fixed. The only thing we need to do is force them to fix them for the sake of the people who bought this "1070MQ" laptop

If you look in the razer thread, you'll see that there are enough users reporting the 35w limitation.

The CPU has a short power limit PL2 (which is usually 1.25x PL1) which can be maintained for a limited amount of time, after that it should be limited by the long term power limit PL1 at 45w (if the EC doesn't overwrite that with an arbitrary imposed limit based on what factors the notebook manufacturer wants).

There is at least one user there that has 60w for PL1 displayed, but apparently it is IGNORED, because in stress tests it triggers the limit at 45w and after a delay it is further limited to 35w (and it stays that way for the remaining duration of the test).

Call it whatever you want, but it is a 35w limit and it's a power limit as it behaves like one (the triggering factors can be different).

There are different behaviors for the same razer models, but apparently they all have the 35w limit, the main difference is in the way it kicks in: some reported a behavior where it was limited at 45w for a while and after a delay the 35w limit kicked in, others have mentioned that they are instantly limited at 35w by exceeding that CPU power draw (this is without any GPU load).

Your assumption is probably based on the theory that there is only one EC power limit and it is only related to the combined power draw, but the limit/limits can be whatever the manufacturer wants it to be and can be triggered by multiple factors.

The fact that razer has a more powerful adapter, doesn't mean that it doesn't suffer from similar limitations (which are probably there to keep thermals in check).

I'll even give you a link to a stress test that shows the razer's thermal limitations (with stock paste) at the usual 45w limit (which could be the main reason why the notebook is limited to 35w... in order to maintain better internal and external temps):

I'm not bashing all the thin and light models, I'm just saying that they all have a lower heat dissipation potential (compared to some of the better designed thick models) and the manufacturers have chosen to manage the thermals by adding other arbitrary imposed limits.

Saying that the X model holds y clocks doesn't mean anything, unless you provide the full context (under what loads, for how long, what's the CPU package power and at what's the undervolt offset?).

Examples of gaming scenarios are less relevant if we don't have enough data (a hwinfo log file would be nice), because it's almost impossible to properly debate the behavior without having at least a few constants (CPU loads fluctuate in gaming).

Click to expand...

In a nutshell all thin and lights throttle the CPU when having combined load. My gripe with this issue is that the clockspeed is simply not stable, which causes unwanted effects such as bad frametimes etc. I would much prefer a quadcore I7 - 8700HQ at stable 3.6ghz than this garbage we are currently getting.

I mean this is insane, your clockspeed all depends on what game etc. you're playing, it's stupid. I would much rather have hardware which is not castrated running stable for stable and nice performance rather than constantly choking my hardware.

But sadly we got greedy idiots who want to brag with specs instead of making a good notebook. it's pathethic.

I honestly think I prefer 7700HQ over the 8750H at the moment. The extra cores don't help in gaming all that much so why bother.

In a nutshell all thin and lights throttle the CPU when having combined load. My gripe with this issue is that the clockspeed is simply not stable, which causes unwanted effects such as bad frametimes etc. I would much prefer a quadcore I7 - 8700HQ at stable 3.6ghz than this garbage we are currently getting.

I mean this is insane, your clockspeed all depends on what game etc. you're playing, it's stupid. I would much rather have hardware which are not castrated running stable for stable and nice performance rather than constantly choking my hardware.

Click to expand...

Razer has a good reason to do it. As if they allowed the I7 8750H to run at max power it will blow the PCH and ROM chips inside the heatsink .so they probably updated the bios with the 35W limitation after record RMA numbers. Doesn't mean they don't suck

Yeah, it's debatable if 8750H is worth the difference on some castrated notebooks (if the main use is just gaming), when you really have to tune them and limit the performance according to the imposed power limits (and thermal limits, since most of the thin laptops have a lower prochot limit, hovering around 90C).

On the other side, even without using higher TB clocks than 7700HQ, we have a significantly higher multicore performance, which could be put to good use in some productivity oriented tasks.

The " normal" (as in thickess) models that are limited at 45w are good for gaming, since most games don't have a CPU power draw that often exceed 45w (just sporadic fluctuations based on the load), so they maintain most of the time 3.9Ghz IF undervolted.

One example is helios 300 with 8750H (which is mostly criticized for the suboptimal cooling solution) but it mostly maintains 3.9ghz in gaming (45w limit) if undervolted (at least in games that have a relatively medium intensity on the CPU, such as PUGB or COD WW2).

I didn't check aero 15x's behavior in different scenarios, but it does have its own problems (the keyboard that double registers or doesn't properly register after the fix and other software related problems).

Msi GS is probably the most balanced option and some problems could be resolved by unlocking the BIOS, + if you have enough thermal headroom, it could be possible to use a trick to report a lower power draw so you can exceed the PL.

I didn't check aero 15x's behavior in different scenarios, but it does have its own problems (the keyboard that double registers or doesn't properly register after the fix and other software related problems).

Msi GS is probably the most balanced option and some problems could be resolved by unlocking the BIOS, + if you have enough thermal headroom, it could be possible to use a trick to report a lower power draw so you can exceed the PL.

Click to expand...

the Aero 15x double keyboard register was fixed in an update. gigabyte main issue is that their drivers conflict with windows ones causing freezing. their support is also abysmal.

the I7 8750H performance is strong enough already in the GS. any thermal headroom should be invested in closing the 1070MQ VS 1070 gap as that's way more important(my opinion). if the GS65 used the 90W 1070MQ it would have been the perfect 'thin and light' laptop.(it doesn't have that option in the bios after researching)

I'm aware of that trick. but I see no point in allowing the I7 8750H to exceed it's PL, as MSI overvolting will just make it draw abysmally high levels of power without returning a decent increase in performance to justify it.

I think synthetic benches like 3dmark shouldnt be used to compare different laptops because of the parts not being under real stress. A actual gaming load with 3 runs will give you a much better idea of the differences in performance. For instance I had a gecube 1070 and an MSI 1070, one at 110w and the other 150w. I saw a performance difference of essentially a 1060 vs 1080 because the GPU boost could be so unleaahed.

I think synthetic benches like 3dmark shouldnt be used to compare different laptops because of the parts not being under real stress. A actual gaming load with 3 runs will give you a much better idea of the differences in performance. For instance I had a gecube 1070 and an MSI 1070, one at 110w and the other 150w. I saw a performance difference of essentially a 1060 vs 1080 because the GPU boost could be so unleaahed.

Click to expand...

If you run firestrike ultra (4k) that will put a VERY heavy load on the GPU.